President Obama swiftly resolved the immediate crisis of command brought about by Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s caustic comments regarding the administration’s prosecution of the Afghanistan war.

Now it’s time for him to take McChrystal’s criticism to heart.

If there’s one thing the McChrystal saga has made plain, it’s the military’s suspicion — voiced among commanders and in the ranks as well — that America’s civilian leadership isn’t fully committed to victory.

And, more to the point, that the president himself is fundamentally a pacifist who doesn’t believe in war — period — and who ultimately will flinch from fighting this one.

Sacking McChrystal may have been necessary, and replacing him with the capable Gen. David Petraeus was wise. But that doesn’t mean the military’s suspicions are misplaced.

McChrystal had been the most forceful advocate for a surge in Afghanistan — requesting 40,000 more troops to replicate the Iraq strategy modeled by the Marine Corps in Anbar Province, and that Petraeus adopted for the country at large.

Obama finally gave him 30,000, but only after three months of dithering.

Moreover, the authorized troops won’t all have arrived until this December — and the president has stipulated that they’ll all start to come home by July 2011.

Talk about a crippling stipulation.

Counterinsurgency is all about winning the cooperation of local populations; certainly the locals won’t be signing up if they’re convinced America intends to abandon them to the Taliban beginning in a year.

The message from Team Obama: The US is willing to pay some price and bear some burden to keep al Qaeda from returning — but don’t expect more.

The troops, of course, risk paying the highest possible price.

Equally infuriating infantrymen are rules of engagement that severely constrain their use of lethal force in rooting out the Taliban — or even in defending themselves.

It’s all in the name of reducing “civilian” casualties — and, yes, that’s a legitimate concern in securing local support.

But it reaches absurdity when the effect is to allow Taliban fighters a free pass. They understand this, and they take advantage of the policy by hiding among civilians as they attack US troops.

Rolling Stone reported that one platoon had — absurdly — been ordered to “patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force.”

Such rules only confirm the perception that America isn’t serious, thus emboldening the enemy even more.

There are signs that Team Obama may be waking up: Reports at week’s end indicated that Petraeus wants to loosen combat restrictions, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates insisted — contradicting Vice President Joe Biden — that the 2011 withdrawal would be conditioned on the facts on the ground.

Good — but not good enough.

What’s still missing is trust among America’s troops — not to mention its enemies — that their leaders are as serious about winning as they are.